MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA HELD AT DeKALB COLLEGE DECATUR, GEORGIA APRIL 9-10, 1996
CALL TO ORDER
The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia met on Tuesday, April 9, 1996, at 1:00 P.M., and again on Wednesday, April 10, 1996, at 9:00 A.M., in the Jim Cherry Learning Resources Center, Room 411, DeKalb College, 3251 Panthersville Road, Decatur, Georgia 30034. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Regent Juanita Powell Baranco. Present, in addition to Chairman Baranco, were Regents: Thomas F. Allgood, Sr. (Vice Chair), John H. Anderson, Jr., Kenneth W. Cannestra, John H. Clark, S. William Clark, Jr., J. Tom Coleman, Jr., A. W. ‟Bill” Dahlberg, Suzanne G. Elson, Elsie P. Hand, Edgar L. Jenkins, Charles H. Jones, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., Elridge W. McMillan, Edgar L. Rhodes, and William B. Turner. Absent on Tuesday, April 9, was Regent Anderson, and absent on Wednesday, April 10, were Regents Jenkins and McMillan.
The invocation was given, on Tuesday, April 9, 1996, by Ms. Michelle Ruby, President of the Gwinnett Campus Student Government Association of DeKalb College, and on Wednesday, April 10, 1996, by Chairman Baranco.
Attendance
The Attendance Report was read on both days by Secretary Gail S. Weber, who announced that there was a quorum each day and that Regent Anderson had asked for and had been given approval to be absent on Tuesday, April 9th, and Regents Jenkins, and McMillan had asked for and had been given approval to be absent on Wednesday, April 10th.
Approval of Minutes
Upon motion by Regent Jenkins, seconded by Regent S. William Clark, Jr., the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Regents held on March 12-13, 1996, were unanimously approved as distributed on Tuesday, April 9, 1996. ANNOUNCEMENT
Chairman Baranco stated that she and the other members of the Board of Regents were very delighted to have their April 1996 Board of Regents meeting at DeKalb College. Chairman Baranco noted that she was especially pleased to be meeting at the College because it is located in the Eleventh District which she represents. Gratitude was expressed by Chairman Baranco to President Jacquelyn M. Belcher and members of her staff, including Dr. Martha T. Nesbitt, Dr. Grace H. McNamara, Mr. Barney L. Simms, and Ms. Amelia Barnett, for their gracious hospitality. Chairman Baranco mentioned that, just prior to the start of the meeting, Dr. Belcher and members of her staff and student body had presented to the Regents a most impressive and enlightening speech and video documentary, ‟Significant Pursuit of Academic Excellence,” which featured DeKalb College. Immediately after the presentation, a delicious lunch had been served to the Regents.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS, MEETING AS THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chairman Baranco announced that the Board was sitting as a Committee of the Whole to discuss the budget allocation process. Regent Cannestra, as Chair of the Finance and Business Committee, stated that there had been much previous discussion of the budget allocation process in Committee meetings. With frequent changes in the allocations each month, many Regents expressed concern that there could be a better method of allocating funds.
Regent Cannestra asked Chancellor Portch to begin a presentation of a new method of budget allocation for FY-1997. Chancellor Portch declared the allocation of the budget to be one of the most important annual activities of the University System of Georgia. He remarked that the institutions have a couple of months to review budget allocations; then the requests for campus budgets come back to the Board in June. The Chancellor said that FY-1996 budgeting will incorporate all sources of funding, and he noted that the Board would concentrate on the allocation of the state appropriation and tuition and fees.
The Chancellor noted that, in the first week of the budgetary session, the Governor was successful in getting support for the introduction of a $175 million tax cut in the state of Georgia and that had implications on the available resources in the budget. In addition, the Governor had implemented a brand new budget philosophy of redirection: the Governor asked each state agency to indicate how it would redirect 5% of its budget. Governor Miller reserved the prerogative to either let an agency keep the 5% it designated for redirection, or he might redirect that 5% from one agency to another one. Redirection was a meaningful activity: twenty-one agencies had their last year’s budget either cut or held constant in real dollars. There was, then, a significant shift of resources among state agencies, as well as a reduction in available dollars that were allocated. The Chancellor announced that he was pleased to report that the University System of Georgia was a net beneficiary of this new budget philosophy. The Chancellor also reported that, by starting down that path a year early in the redirection of 18% of their new money budget, the Board of Regents had had an exercise in redirecting their funds. Chancellor Portch remarked that it had been an extremely successful session, because the University System had spoken with one voice - this voice was carried by the Regents, by the Presidents, by the active Student Government, and by community leaders. The second thing that helped in this regard was the willingness of the System to be accountable for the dollars given to it the year before. There was a lot of positive reaction to the System’s responsiveness on accountability and show of results. The Chancellor noted that GALILEO was clearly the star in that venue, but other progress was impressive and demonstrable. Throughout the session, there was great leadership from the Governor, from the Lieutenant Governor and from the Speaker of the House. There was also very good understanding from the Legislative Committees chaired by Representative Calvin Smyre and Senator Jack Hill, who had both worked with and met with the Board of Regents’ committees. In the final hours, there was a very accessible and supportive conference committee that made the final recommendations on the budget. There were also excellent partnerships that were continued with the Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) and the Legislative Budget Office (LBO) - these were very important partners who worked in a most positive climate with representatives of the University System of Georgia. The outcomes were significantly increased overall resources for the University System.
The Chancellor pointed out one change that showed less flexibility for institutions: while resources were increased, there were many funds assigned for specific use. The central one was the funding for the 6% salary increases, which allows the System to make up some ground with the rest of the nation and with its competitors in the area of salaries. In another area, the formula area, this was fully supported. Also, funding was received in every category of the special initiatives; that happened in the last few hours of the session. In addition, some of those initiatives would be leveraged with private money, which would be discussed later.
Referring to the special budget initiatives, the Chancellor remarked that these allowed the Legislature to see that the System was an agency with new ideas.
• The graduate initiative was aimed at taking some existing graduate programs at the research institutions and making them world-class and highly selective - one to two at each institution was funded, and that would make a difference. Thus, noted the Chancellor, the philosophy of on our strengths was a good one.
• Funding was available to begin the process of taking graduate programs at Albany State College, Fort Valley State College and Savannah State College to national accreditation levels.
• Probably for the first time, allocation would be directed towards the land grant mission of Fort Valley State - to assist in the establishment (in cooperation with the University of Georgia) of an agricultural experiment station. This graduate initiative totaled about $3.9 million. • Referring to facilities master planning (a Regent-initiative), Chancellor Portch noted that, initially, a request for funding of master planning was requested for a number of institutions. In the final analysis, funding was received for North Georgia College, South Georgia College and Floyd College because those were the three institutions up next for their accreditation review, and accrediting agencies are very demanding on facilities master planning. The Chancellor noted that the Central Office had been working with the OPB on the notion of using $75,000 at the central level to work on getting a template for a master plan: this brought the total to $450,000.
• The Distinguished Teachers program included $45,000 from the state, and each of 30 institutions pledged to raise $25,000 from other sources to provide this program at their institution. Faculty who are designated as Distinguished Teachers will have responsibilities for teaching 2/3 time, and the other 1/3 time he/she would be a catalyst for teaching enhancement and improvement across the entire campus at workshops, resource centers and technology needs in the classrooms, etc. The Chancellor noted that he was very excited about supporting the Distinguished Teacher program.
• Professional Development was another important area, and state support of that effort was very important. One million dollars was allocated for this special initiative. The budget designated $500,000 for massive curriculum revision, and another $500,000 was specified for Post-Tenure Review and Faculty Retraining. The Chancellor gave, as an example, taking a faculty member in an area like physics and retraining him/her as a computer scientist. The Central Office would hold these funds for campuses to request on an as-needed basis.
• The Intellectual Capital Program (ICAPP) was typified by the Total Systems project in Columbus, but it is more than that - it is the economic development program which will enable the System to respond to economic development needs in the state as those needs are determined. There will be other colleges besides Columbus College involved in such endeavors. It is expected that the money designated for the Columbus project will be freed up in about two years to be used for other such projects. The Chancellor noted that much gratitude was owed the Governor and the Legislature for their responsiveness in providing $400,000 for on-going needs assessment for work force needs in the state - the System can thereby project these needs and respond appropriately.
• For the P-16 initiative at the state level, there is support of $300,000. Two elements of the program include: (1) fast-track pre-college to include taking eight graders and getting them ready to meet the new standards in four years, and (2) giving local P-16 councils some challenge grants.
All of the above elements involved the capturing of new ideas, according to the Chancellor. In the early part of the budget session, there was discussion on whether new ideas could be afforded when there had to be cuts on some other activities. As the session went on, it was communicated that the University System is an agency with momentum and new ideas and one that delivers when funded. Chancellor Portch announced that one reason the University System received successful budget numbers was because Representative Smyre, who chaired the House Committee, was extremely helpful with communicating the needs of the System.
The Chancellor then asked Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources, Dr. Lindsay Desrochers, to speak. The Regents Budget, which was adopted by the Board in September 1995, stated Dr. Desrochers, was largely adopted by the Governor in his budget and approved by the Legislature. Dr. Desrochers declared her gratitude for that support. In addition to the 6% salary increase and the other items that the Chancellor had mentioned, there had been good fortune in getting support for the capital budget. Eight full projects were funded by the Governor and the Legislature, and all were presently in design. The design funds had been applied, and the System was moving forward quickly with the process of planning those projects. Additionally, funding had been received for completion of the Animal Science project at the University of Georgia and for the renovation of Brooks Hall, which had burned. Also, the Governor provided over $7 million in funding for the Albany State College recovery. Finally, an additional benefit, which was not initially anticipated, was support for the purchase of modular units at Georgia Southern University - $3.2 million of which will be brought to the Buildings and Grounds Committee for approval of those purchases. Dr. Desrochers spoke on the process of planning these allocation recommendations; it was a different process than had been followed in the past. As the System moved into spring, and as the Legislature was beginning its review of the Governor’s budget, Senior Vice Chancellor Desrochers stated that the Board of Regents’ office organized for allocations. Certain principles were used in developing the allocations.
The Strategic Plan, “Access for Academic Excellence,” as adopted by the Board of Regents last year, stated Dr. Desrochers, was to be the guidepost for making all allocations. In addition, any gains made through the Policy Directions growing out of that plan were assessed, and plans were devised to push those gains further with the allocation process. The parameters that the Board had approved in September 1995 were used for redirecting any funds - both at the campus level and at the System level. Allocations were to be strategic investments. There would be investments in productivity and quality - not simply relying on growth alone. Finally, and very importantly, all of the campuses were to be involved in the full process. In the fall, the campuses were directed to take on the redirection task. They were assigned 2-1/2% of their base budget to identify as possible redirection and to say, if they were allowed to keep those dollars provided by the Governor and the Legislature, where exactly they would redirect those funds. That totaled $29 million dollars in the overall budget in the 34 institutions. In the fall, the campuses developed their campus redirection plans. In January, the Chancellor appointed a committee that was chaired by Senior Vice Chancellors Muyskens and Desrochers and composed of campus presidents and other officers. This committee would set up a process for dealing with the other 2-1/2% of funds at the System level. Out of that committee came a suggestion that the Central Office meet individually with every campus. This resulted in a marathon process of meetings with 34 individual campuses. There were over 100 individuals involved in the process, and many hundreds of hours were expended to determine an overall plan for the System. The campuses made requests that were required to be consistent with the Regents’ Strategic Plan: they had to represent the mission of the institution; they had to have financial benefits; they had to be related to standards of national excellence; and, the Committee favored inter-institutional collaboration where campuses worked together. In these allocations, no assumption was made that money would automatically go to anyone - reasoned arguments were made in that regard. In addition to getting an insight into what was going on at each campus, some interesting themes emerged: (1) there is an overwhelming need for technology resources to implement the policies of the Regents on the campuses, and there is a demand for that technology from both the students and the faculty; and, (2) strategic and mission-based planning that is desired from the campuses is beginning to take hold. Targeting of academic programs for excellence has begun. Institutions are targeting services to students to improve retention of students. A major point was that fluctuations in enrollment growth need to be reflected in the allocations. On some campuses, there is some decline in enrollment; in others, growth. The System received from the state an additional $8.4 million in the area of MRR funding to be used for preservation of the assets of the System. Dr. Desrochers stated that she was very pleased to have those additional funds with which to work. The allocations reflect the System’s willingness to invest in the campuses’ strategic initiatives based on their missions and strategic plans.
Dr. Desrochers continued by stating that the allocations received from the state are a big part of the budget, but there are also funds received from fees and tuition. The assumptions built into this allocation summary are based on carrying out the tuition policy that the Board of Regents voted on last month and that the Board began to work on last year. She noted that the System would attempt to continue to increase the out-of-state tuition until getting to the full cost of education for out-of-state students. The Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources said that it must be assumed that there will be modest tuition increases for Georgia students: this year the request is at a 6% level, which is based on the traditional method whereby those fees are raised. The tuition in state institutions will still be relatively low as compared to other states. Finally, this allocation summary is based on the notion that the salary dollars will be based on merit. That $64 million will be distributed on the basis of merit. Dr. Desrochers used a chart to show the distribution last year; she noted that a bell curve resulted from 28% of employees of the System receiving increases at the 6% level, while many employees received a lesser percentage increase and a few received greater percentage increases. This graph was used in meetings with the Legislature on the budget process.
Dr. Desrochers introduced Mr. William R. Bowes, Associate Vice Chancellor for Fiscal Affairs, to give more details on the materials before the Board. Mr. Bowes stated that his task was to show how all the numbers fit together. He noted that Attachment 1 showed how the budget allocation was built from the 1996 budget - about $1.4 billion. The original FY-1996 budget included only state-appropriated funds and fee and tuition revenues. The first adjustment was for $5.9 million based on redirection of system-level funds for special funding initiatives with adjustments made for fringe-benefit rates, legislative reduction based on statutory change that would go into effect regarding optional retirement, and some other minor adjustments. A $29 million institutional redirection as referenced by Dr. Desrochers created a new 1996 budget base to be worked from of about $1.38 billion. The $64.2 million salary increase of 6% overall for merit-based salary adjustments comprises the bulk of new dollars being received. Mr. Bowes noted that there were $12.9 million in enrollment-related adjustments - based on (but not driven by) formula variables. Funds were aimed primarily toward strategic initiatives. An additional $1.97 million was recommended as an allocation for operating costs of new facilities to provide for preservation and maintenance of physical assets; this would cover about six or seven campuses throughout the System. As to the campuses’ request for redirection of System-level funds, the total amount being worked with is about $21.2 million as shown in Attachment 1. These re-direction requests fell into five major categories: professional development, instructional technology and information systems, campus strategic initiatives and the nursing initiative. An additional $2 million had been set aside for the new information system software that the System expected to acquire early in FY-1997; additionally, funds would be used for some training and equipment costs throughout the System. The total amount of redirected funds, including the $2 million, is about $23.2 million. That would leave a balance of about $2.4 as a reserve for future allocations, or a contingency against unanticipated costs, which represents about 1.7% of total new funds available. The Major Repair and Rehabilitation Funding increase was shown at $8.4 million. The increase is related to formula-generated amounts, and a specific addition of new $6.3 million in funds by the Governor and Legislature. This would make $38.9 million available for major repair and rehabilitation in FY-1997. Total additional funds, including the institutional redirection of $29 million and the $64 million salary increase, is about $142.1 million. This, added to the FY-1996 budget base, gives the FY-1997 general operating budget of $1.527 billion. Sources of funds show that about $1,137,000 of that $1.527 billion comes from state appropriations, and the balance is being made up from internal revenue of tuition and fees, or $390.6 million. Included in that amount is a 6% increase.
Mr. Bowes pointed out distribution of state appropriations by institution. He noted that a table summarized amounts for all teaching institutions in the University System. Also shown was distribution for other organized activities that are part of the budget. Finally, lottery funds are shown separately and include funding for the equipment technology trust fund and some of the technology initiatives that continue from the prior year. A chart had the FY-1996/FY-1997 allocations of the original budget for FY-1995/1996. An attachment showed $20.35 million that was provided by the Governor and the Legislature for both the existing initiatives and the new initiatives. Appendices 2 and 3 showed tuition and fee increases.
Mr. Bowes then called on Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Dr. James Muyskens, to speak. Dr. Muyskens remarked that he felt there had been a good collaborative effort between the Academic Affairs Department and the Fiscal Affairs Department and that it was gratifying to have academic considerations at the heart of the budget process. His focus would be on three areas, stated Dr. Muyskens. First, he would focus on instructional technology which had been emphasized by virtually every campus. The System wanted to encourage faculty to work together as teams in developing expertise in new teaching technologies. Armstrong State College’s plan was a good example: they would begin their program with two small teams of faculty and with the expectation that over the next two years over 50% of their faculty would be using the latest technology in their classrooms. Another objective is to have campuses develop their telecommunications capabilities for instruction. Clayton State has an exciting proposal to upgrade the campus telecommunications infrastructure and to provide faculty training for use in advanced information technology. Also, the System would like to use technology in classrooms to make the learning experience a more active, rather than passive, one. Darton College’s proposal is a very good example of this. With regard to Faculty and Staff Development, there are eight programs to be funded, programs designed to help faculty to stay abreast of the latest instructional technology and developments in teaching techniques and in research within their disciplines.
Dr. Muyskens noted that there was a broad category of campus initiatives. This category is designed to strike a balance needed between uniform solutions to common problems across institutions and specific needs on each campus reflecting a unique mission and special strengths and opportunities. The campus initiatives attempted to pick up some of those unique contributions that various campuses can make. Georgia State University, for instance, had a proposal to improve writing taught across its entire curriculum; Valdosta State University and Augusta College had proposals for supporting their local P-16 initiatives to make sure that the institutions are working cooperatively with local schools in their areas; Georgia College had a proposal for strengthening liberal arts and to make it the core of their new strategic plan; Kennesaw State College and West Georgia College emphasized internationalizing their campuses; and Savannah State College is trying to build strength in some key areas of biology and mathematics. Dr. Muyskens stated that he could give many more examples showing that the campuses have risen to the challenge.
Chancellor Portch then thanked the team from the Central Office who worked collaboratively to combine academic affairs and fiscal affairs. He also expressed his gratitude to the campuses for their very important input into the budgeting process. The Chancellor noted that strategic budgeting to support a strategic plan is more complicated and more stressful than allocating by a simple formula, but it is the right thing to do to support the strategic plan. This is the most meaningful way for the Board of Regents to establish its policy direction. The University System of Georgia campuses are being truly challenged by having to redirect, for the first time in their history, 2-1/2% of their existing budgets; then having to compete for the 2- 1/2% of the redirection of the System-level funds. The Chancellor stated that the System would share with the Board a summary of the campus redirections, and he remarked that the System institutions did an extremely good job with their redirection plans. They had been challenged and will be challenged even more in the future. Chancellor Portch announced that the Governor would require redirection each year of his term. The Chancellor suggested that the first 5% was always the easiest. There would be another 5% of redirection coming the next year, and the next - this would mean further challenges to come. Chancellor Portch declared that the System had a focus and a direction to use resources wisely. The strategic plan puts the System in a good position to respond, with continued support of all partners, and it would respond creatively and positively on this and future budgets.
Comments:
Regent Dahlberg asked whether any long-term projections had been made on unit costs linked to demographic changes in the state to determine needed work force changes. The Chancellor stated that he and Regent Allgood had investigated this and that these demographic changes should also drive investigations into where the facility needs would be. Chancellor Portch also declared that these three things would be combined in the next budgeting to establish a five-year rolling target for each institution, taking into consideration enrollment and its relationship to academic programming: through that method the unit cost would be determined. The goal is, noted the Chancellor, to reduce the unit cost at institutions who have under-utilization of facilities.
Regent Jones asked whether all employees in the System were included in the bell curve explained by Dr. Desrochers. The Chancellor answered that all employees, full-time and part-time, were included in the bell curve. This would total around 50,000 employees, and this was confirmed by Mr. Levy Youmans.
Regent Jones also wanted to know whether all of the campuses responded to requests for information about special funding needs, and he received an affirmative response.
Regent Elson asked why the library funding amount had gone down. The Chancellor explained that this amount did not really go down - that this was continuation money. The earlier costs were up-front costs to get the library up and going - the amount is a full continuation cost needed to continue to add elements to the library and to bring on additional partners. The original investment of $10 million included a lot of start-up costs.
Regent Dahlberg asked whether special requests roll into the next year’s base or were they always backed out each year. The Chancellor responded that it was a mix - the System works with the Office of Planning and Budget and the Legislative Budget Office to determine which projects are ‟continuation” projects and which are one-time projects. Regent Dahlberg then asked whether there was one other adjustment - were there some things that have been in the base and are eliminated. The Chancellor confirmed that this was the case and noted that that could be seen in the budget with the redirection of some special initiatives from about six years ago which were redirected when the formula picked them up.
By motion of Regent Coleman, seconded by Regent J. H. Clark, the Board unanimously approved Items #2, 3, 4 and 5.
Chairman Baranco thanked all involved in the preparation and presentation of these budgets which had required heroic effort to accomplish. She also recognized and welcomed Representative Calvin Smyre and thanked him for his tremendous help with the budget endeavor.
Representative Smyre commented that he was happy to be present for the meeting of the Board of Regents at DeKalb College. He mentioned that the Legislature had given a vote of confidence to the Board of Regents and the University System of Georgia with its budget allocations to the System. He noted that he had enjoyed working with Chancellor Portch, Vice Chancellor Tom Daniel and the Central Office team to assist in bringing about legislation that will help higher education in the state. Representative Smyre congratulated the Board for their forward-looking leadership in the area of higher education in the state and the nation. He remarked that the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia has the kind of vision needed to participate in the era of high technology, of global economy and in the era of connecting to the world at large.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Secretary Weber announced that there would be a hospitality suite, Room 222, at the Ramada Inn, Northlake, where people could gather and from which vans furnished by DeKalb College would depart at 6:00 p.m. to take guests to the Marina at Stone Mountain for dinner that evening. Ms. Weber also announced that passes were available at the registration desk outside the door of the meeting room for those who would be driving their own vehicles to Stone Mountain.
On Tuesday, April 9, 1996, there being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 2:10 P.M. by Chairman Baranco in order for the Committees to meet. COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Upon motion by Regent Dahlberg, seconded by Regent S. William Clark, Jr., and without objection, the Board unanimously approved and authorized the following Committee reports on Wednesday, April 10, 1996:
Report of Committee on Education
The Committee on Education met on April 9, in the Jim Cherry Learning Resource Center, Room #414, with the following members present: Regents S. William Clark, Jr. (Chairman), Elson (Vice Chair) John H. Clark, Dahlberg, Hand, McMillan and Rhodes. Regent S. William Clark, Jr. presented the Committee’s report with the request that the following items be adopted. The Committee, through its Chair, reported that in separate letters to Chancellor Portch, the Presidents of the institutions of the University System submitted various items, listed below, for approval or discussion by the Board. After discussion of these and other items and upon the recommendations of the Chancellor and the Committee on Education, by motion of Regent S. William Clark, Jr., the Board unanimously approved and authorized the following items.
1. Revised Statutes, Georgia Southern University
The Board approved the request of President Nicholas L. Henry to revise the Statutes of Georgia Southern University, effective immediately.
The revisions have been carefully reviewed by the Office of Legal Affairs and the Office of Academic Affairs and were found to be consistent with the current organization and administrative structure at Georgia Southern University. A copy of the revised statutes is on file in the Office of Academic Affairs of the Board of Regents.
2. Revised Faculty Statutes, Floyd College
The Board approved the request of President H. Lynn Cundiff to revise the Faculty Statutes of Floyd College, effective immediately.
The revisions have been carefully reviewed by the Office of Legal Affairs and the Office of Academic Affairs and were found to be consistent with the current organization and administrative structure at Floyd College. A copy of the revised faculty statutes is on file in the Office of Academic Affairs of the Board of Regents. 3. Naming of Covered Pavilion, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
The Board approved the request of President Harold J. Loyd that Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College be authorized to name a covered picnic shelter in memory of Mr. and Mrs. J. Alvin Rowan, effective immediately.
The covered picnic shelter on the shores of Lake Baldwin would be named the Rowan Pavilion. Mr. Rowan was an alumnus of Abraham Baldwin. Six of the nine children in the Rowan’s immediate family and sixteen of the grand children have attended ABAC. The Rowan family members have been long-time supporters of the college.
The picnic shelter is used by various campus and student groups for picnics and cookouts. The gift of $10,000 from the estate of Mr. and Mrs. J. Alvin Rowan would replace the roof of this shelter and purchase picnic tables and grills. The current wooden roof, decking, and trusses are in a poor state of repair. This gift enables the College to repair this shelter with private funds.
4. Naming of Garden Area, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
The Board approved the request of President Harold J. Loyd that Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College be authorized to name a small garden area in memory of Mrs. Orene Allen Greene, effective immediately.
The small garden area on the south side of Donaldson Dining Hall serves as an entrance to a small dining room and would be named in memory of Mrs. Orene Allen Greene. Mrs. Greene was an alumnus of the Georgia State College for Men (a predecessor to Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College) in 1931. Funds for the beautification of this garden area have been provided by Mrs. Greene’s daughter.
This small dining room is used for a variety of private luncheons and dinners for various groups. Prospective contributors and friends of the college often use this small dining room. The beautification of that area will enhance fund raising efforts of the College.
5. Master of Art Education, Valdosta State University
The Board approved the request of President Hugh Bailey that Valdosta State University be authorized to offer the Master of Art Education Program, effective immediately.
Abstract: The proposed Master of Art Education Program is targeted for current art teachers in South Georgia who aspire to complete graduate work in visual arts education. The program will be offered through the Art Department. The program consists of 60 quarter hours, including 10 hours in core courses, 15 hours in research, 15 hours in art education, 15 hours in studio art courses, and 5 hours in guided electives.
Objectives: To develop professional art educators who have advanced competency in the practice and teaching of art; to aid individuals in enhancing their creative, artistic, aesthetic, and critical thinking abilities in art; to improve programs of art instruction in the schools of the region through advanced teacher education; and to provide and generate visual arts leadership within and across school and community settings throughout the region.
Need: Based upon a needs assessment completed in 1988, and updated in 1995, there are 111 art teachers in South Georgia with only T-4 (entry level) certificates. This master’s program will make it possible for art teachers in the southern region of the State to upgrade their knowledge and performance in art, and their professional skills in teaching.
Projected Enrollment: The program will begin in FY ‘97 with a projected enrollment of 15 students during the first year, an additional 15 in the second, and an additional 15 in the third.
Priority: Valdosta State University has placed this proposed program high on its list on institutional priorities. This program will allow Valdosta State University to expand program opportunities for the teachers in South Georgia, which is in keeping with the mission of a regional university.
Funding: Valdosta State University has redirected funds internally to support this program. The proposed program builds upon existing departmental strengths, and will require no additional faculty or administrative personnel.
Curriculum: The program consists of five basic components
A. Core Curriculum (15 quarter hours)
FED 700 Foundations of Education (5) FED 701 Educational Research (5) PSY 702 Conditions of Learning (5)
B. Research (10 quarter hours)
* ARE 715 Research Problems in Art Education (5) * ARE 793 Terminal Project (5) or * ARE 799 Thesis (5)
C. Art Education (15 quarter hours)
* ARE 745 Art Curriculum (5) * ARE 750 Issues and Trends in Art Education (5) * ARE 767 Aesthetic Inquiry and Art Criticism (5) D. Art Studio Electives (15 quarter hours)
* ART 600 Advanced Watercolor (3) ART 610 Advanced Ceramics I (5) ART 620 Advanced Drawing/Composition (5) ART 624 Advanced Painting (5) ART 665 Technical Problems (1-5) ART 695 Workshop in Art (1-5) * ART 707 Advanced Computer Graphics (3) * ART 790 Directed Study in Art (1-5)
E. Guided Electives: Art History Recommended (5 quarter hours)
* ART 767 Late 20th Century Art (3) ART 651 Special Topics in Art History (1-5)
In 1999 the Office of Academic Affairs will re-examine this program in terms of quality, budget, support, and enrollment, and report back to the Board.
* New Courses
6 . Termination of the Major in Agricultural Technology Management under the Bachelor of Science in Agriculture Degree from the College of Agricultural Technology Management, The University of Georgia
The Board approved the request of President Charles B. Knapp that The University of Georgia be authorized to terminate the major in Agricultural Technology Management (ATM) under the Bachelor of Science in Agriculture degree, effective immediately.
The recommendation for termination is based on low enrollment and graduation rates for the program. The primary concern regarding the program has been the high level of instructional support required compared to the low number of students enrolled.
Students currently enrolled in the ATM program are all juniors and seniors. They have been notified of the intention to terminate the program and have been advised regarding the completion of their program requirements. These students will be able to complete the required courses by the end of Fall 1996.
The service courses for other curricula in the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences will continue to be taught. No tenured faculty are solely dependent on ATM courses for their teaching responsibilities.
7. Conferring of Emeritus Titles. At the request of the presidents of various institutions in the University System, the Board conferred the title of Emeritus upon the following faculty members, effective on the data indicated:
(a) AUGUSTA COLLEGE
Dr. Alan H. Drake, Professor Emeritus of Music Department of Fine Arts, School of Arts & Sciences, Effective April 10, 1996.
Dr. Ed Moon Edmonds, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Department of Psychology, School of Arts & Sciences, effective July 1, 1996.
Dr. William Harold Moon, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Department of Psychology, School of Arts & Sciences, effective January 1, 1997.
Ms. Artemisia D. Thevaos, Associate Professor Emerita of Music Department of Fine Arts, School of Arts & Sciences, effective July 1, 1996. (b) CLAYTON STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Billy Ray Nail, Professor Emerita of Mathematics, Department of General Studies, School of Arts & Sciences, effective May 1, 1996.
(c) GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Robert E. Croom, Professor Emeritus of Public and Urban Affairs, Department of Social Work, College of Public & Urban Affairs, effective July 1, 1996.
(d) WEST GEORGIA COLLEGE
Dr. Edna E. Edwards, Professor of English & Chair, Department of Secondary Education Emerita, Department of Middle and Secondary Grades Education, School of Education, effective April 1, 1996.
8. Granting of Probationary Credit toward Tenure. The Board approved recommendations for the awarding of probationary credit toward tenure to the following faculty members, effective on the dates indicated:
(a) ARMSTRONG STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Stephen M. Jodis, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics & Computer Science, College of Arts & Sciences, one year probationary credit towards tenure, effective September 1, 1993. (b) THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Dr. Carl Ronald Carroll, Associate Director Administrative & Professor, Institute of Ecology, Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, three years probationary credit towards tenure, effective July 1, 1996. (This is a change of rank from Senior Research Scientist).
Dr. Ronald Keith Chesser, Professor, Department of Genetics, Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, from non-tenure track to tenure track, effective March 14, 1996.
9. Approval of Faculty for Non-Tenure Track Status. The Board approved non-tenure track status for the following faculty members, effective on the dates indicated:
(a) CLAYTON STATE COLLEGE
Ms. Deborah T. Huntley, Assistant Professor, Department of Baccalaureate Degree Nursing, School of Health Sciences, from tenure track to non-tenure track, effective September 9, 1996.
Ms. Susan J. Sanner, Instructor, Department of Baccalaureate Degree Nursing, School of Health Sciences, from tenure track to non-tenure track, effective September 9, 1996.
(b) MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA
Dr. Abdullah Kutlar, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, School of nursing, from tenure track to non-tenure track, effective July 1, 1996.
10. Appointment of Faculty and Leaves of Absence. The Board approved the appointment of faculty members at the salaries and for the period recommended at the following institutions: Armstrong State College, Augusta College, Columbus College, Clayton State College, Dalton College, DeKalb College, Floyd College, Georgia College, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Southern University, Georgia State University, Gordon College, Kennesaw State College, Medical College of Georgia, North Georgia College, Southern College of Technology, the University of Georgia, Valdosta State University and West Georgia College. These appointments and leaves of absence were recommended by the presidents of the institutions subsequent to the last regular meeting of the Board on March 12-13, 1996. The recommendations were found by the Chancellor and his staff to be in order. A list of these appointments and leaves of absence is on file in the office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the Board of Regents. 11. Faculty Promotions. The Board approved the promotion of faculty members in the various institutions of the University System, effective with the 1996-1997 contract year. These promotions were recommended by the Presidents of the institutions subsequent to the meeting of the Board on March 12-13, 1996. The recommendations were carefully reviewed and considered by the Chancellor and his staff and were found to be in order. A list of these promotions is on file in the office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Human and External Resources.
12. Appointment of Faculty Members Previously Retired from the University System. The Board approved the part-time appointments of faculty members previously retired from the University System. The appointments were recommended by Chancellor Portch and Presidents Bloodworth, Skinner, Burran, Clough, Knapp and Sethna, as follows:
(a) AUGUSTA COLLEGE
Dr. Donald Royal Law, Professor Emeritus, Department of Accounting, Economics & Finance, School of Business Administration, part-time, for period March 28, 1996-June 15, 1996.
(b) CLAYTON STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Faye T. Barr, Dean, Administrative (Acting) Student Enrollment Services, part-time, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997.
(c) DALTON COLLEGE
Ms. Jacqueline H. Stanley, Associate Comptroller, (NTT), part-time, for period April 1, 1996-June 30, 1996.
(d) GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Ms. Marion F. Hale, Associate Professor Emeritus, School of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, part-time, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997.
Dr. Marie Lomonaco, Part-time Assistant Professor, (NTT) School of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997.
Dr. Douglas J. Stanwyck, Part-time Instructor, Department of Early Childhood Education, College of Education, part-time, for period March 25, 1996-May 31, 1996.
(e) THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Mr. Ronald C. Atkinson, Special Agent, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, part-time, for period June 1, 1996-June 30, 1996. Ms. Geraldine L. Cornish, Consultant, College of Veterinary Medicine, part-time, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997. Additional period of employment is also being requested for period April 11, 1996-June 30, 1996.
Dr. Thomas K. Dix, over seventy years of age, Assistant Professor, Department of Classics, Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, Full-time with three years of probationary credit, effective September 18, 1996.
Mr. Gary L. Doster, Research Coordinator I, part-time, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997.
Dr. James Robert Duncan, Professor Emeritus, Department of Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, part-time, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997.
Dr. Coy Avery Gibson, Assistant Professor Emeritus, Department of Medicinal Chemistry & Pharmacognosy, College of Pharmacy, part-time, for period April 1, 1996-April 30, 1996.
Dr. John Bernard Gratzek, Professor Emeritus, Department of Medical Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, part-time, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997.
Mr. Herbert Blair Henderson, over seventy years of age and retired, Professor Emeritus, Vice President for Academic Affairs, part-time, for period January 1, 1996-June 30, 1996.
Dr. Paul Eugene Hoffman, Professor Emeritus, Department of Large Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, part-time, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997.
Dr. Robert Eugene Lewis, Professor Emeritus, Department of Anatomy & Radiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, part-time, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997.
Dr. John Edward McCormack, Professor, Department of Large Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, part-time, for period July 1, 1996- June 30, 1997.
Dr. John T. Mercer, over seventy years of age and retired, Part-time Associate Professor, Department of Large Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, part-time, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997.
Dr. John E. Oliver, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Department of Small Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, part-time, for period July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997.
Dr. James J. Peifer, over seventy years of age and retired, Vice President for Academic Affairs, part-time, for period January 1, 1996-June 30, 1996.
Dr. Stanley A. Vezey, over seventy years of age and retired, Part-time Professor, Department of Avian Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, part-time, for period July 1, 196-June 30, 1997.
(f) WEST GEORGIA COLLEGE
Mr. James Curtis Dahl, Assistant Professor, Department of English and Philosophy School of Arts & Sciences, part-time, for period April 1, 1996-June 14, 1996.
13. Administrative Appointments. The Board approved the appointment of the following individuals to the administrative positions as indicated, effective on the date indicated:
(a) GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Janice C. Griffith, Dean Academic and Professor, College of Law, with three years of probationary credit, effective July 1, 1996.
(b) THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Dr. Keith William Prasse, Dean Academic in Addition to Professor, Department of Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, effective July 1, 1996.
14. The COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION reported through its Chairman that the individuals listed below had filed applications for review of decisions made by the presidents of their respective institutions, as authorized by Article IX of the Bylaws of the Board. After careful consideration, discussion, and upon the recommendation of the Committee on Education and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs, with motion properly made, variously seconded and unanimously adopted, the Board made the following decisions:
1. Albany State College: Dr. Sandy Cohen, concerning his application for review of his salary After investigation, review and careful consideration, and at the President’s request, the Board continued this application for review.
2. The University of Georgia: Mr. Yeong-Tong Wu, concerning his application for review of his transfer and application within graduate school. After investigation, review and careful consideration, the Board denied this application for review.
3. Southern College of Technology: Ms. Mary Carnes Gunn, concerning her application for review of her compensation for 1995/1996. This application for review has been withdrawn.
4. Fort Valley State College: Mr. Roger Kitchens, concerning his application for review of denial of his tenure. After investigation, review and careful consideration, the Board denied this application for review.
5. DeKalb College: Ms. Ingrid R. Torsay, concerning her application for review of denial of her tenure. After investigation, review and careful consideration, the Board denied this application for review.
6. Georgia State University: Ms. Frances Jo Grossman, concerning her application for review of denial of her tenure and promotion. After investigation, review and careful consideration, the Board denied this application for review.
7. West Georgia College: Mr. Joseph P. Bryne, concerning his application for review of the denial of recommendation for his tenure. After investigation, review and careful consideration, the Board denied this application for review.
8. Georgia Institute of Technology: Ms. Karen Francis-James, concerning her application for review of termination of her employment. After investigation, review and careful consideration, the Board denied this application for review.
9. Albany State College: Mr. Cheyenn Fields, concerning termination of his employment. After investigation, review and careful consideration, the Board recommended that a hearing be scheduled before a Hearing Officer in Atlanta.
10. Medical College of Georgia: Mr. Frederick N. Klippert, concerning his application for review of a denial of his promotion. After investigation, review and careful consideration, the Board denied this application for review.
11. Georgia State University: Ms. Joyce Young Johnson, concerning her application for review of denial of her tenure and promotion. After investigation, review and careful consideration, the Board denied this application for review.
12. Kennesaw State College: Ms. Violet A. Towne, concerning her application for review of her employment status. After investigation, review and careful consideration, the Board denied this application for review.
Report of Committee on Finance and Business Operations
The COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS met on April 9, 1996, with the following members present: Regents Cannestra (Chair), Coleman (Vice Chair), Allgood, Jones, Leebern and Turner. Regent Anderson was absent. After discussion and upon the recommendations of the Chancellor and Committee on Finance and Business Operations, by motion of Regent Cannestra, variously seconded and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following six items:
1. Approval of Amendments to Fiscal Year 1996 Budget
The Board of Regents approved the consolidated amendments to the Fiscal Year 1996 Budget of the University System of Georgia as displayed in Appendix I, which is on file in the office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources/Treasurer.
2. Increase in Matriculation and Non-Resident Fees
The Board approved increases in the matriculation and non-resident fees for students in the University System of Georgia, effective with the opening of the 1996 Summer Quarter as described in Appendix II, which is on file in the office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources/Treasurer. 3. Adjustment in Mandatory Student Charges
The Board approved the increase in mandatory student charges for the various institutions of the University System as displayed in Appendix III, which is on file in the office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources/Treasurer.
4. Approval of Method of Distributing Salary and Wage Adjustment Funds Provided in the Fiscal Year 1997 State Appropriation
The Board approved the Statement of Salary and Wage Administration which appears as Appendix IV, ‟Salary Administration Policy - Fiscal Year 1997,” shown below:
SALARY ADMINISTRATION POLICY FISCAL YEAR 1997
The Board of Regents allocated to each institution funds equivalent to a six (6%) percent salary increase for all employees. These increases must be provided on the basis of merit. With these funds the institutions may grant merit salary increases to individual employees. It is expected that individual merit salary increases will be reasonably distributed among employees in amounts ranging from zero to ten (10%) percent. Salary increases may exceed ten (10%) percent for employees exhibiting exceptionally meritorious performance. Salary increases which exceed ten (10%) percent must be justified individually in writing when the budget is submitted.
5. Allocation of State Appropriation for Fiscal Year 1997
The Board approved the allocation of the State Appropriation for Fiscal Year 1997 among the various institutions and operating units of the University System of Georgia as displayed in Appendix V, which is on file in the office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources/Treasurer. Tentative allocations were distributed to the various institutions and separately budgeted units of the University System.
6. Declaration of Trust, Macon College: “The Endowment Challenge Grant”
The Board authorized President S. Aaron Hyatt to execute, on behalf of the Board of Regents, a Declaration of Trust under which ‟The Endowment Challenge Grant” will be created at Macon College. Further: The chief business officer, presently Mr. Jack H. Ragland, Vice President for Business Affairs, is authorized by the Board to execute, on behalf of the Board of Regents, those documents necessary to provide proper fiscal management of the trust established by this Declaration.
In a letter addressed to Chancellor Stephen R. Portch, dated October 4, 1995. President Hyatt requested permission to establish an endowment account in the amount of $750,000 according to the terms of the Declaration of Trust shown as Appendix VI, which is on file in the office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources/Treasurer.
7. Information Item: Change in Budget Amendment Process
The Committee discussed a new approach for presenting monthly budget amendments to the Finance and Business Operations Committee designed to streamline the process and place greater emphasis on major budget changes.
Report of Committee on Buildings and Grounds
The COMMITTEE ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS met on April 9, 1996, with the following members present: Regents Jones (Chairman), Allgood, Cannestra, Coleman, Leebern and Turner. Regent Anderson was absent. The Committee, through its Chair, reported that in separate letters to Chancellor Portch, the presidents of the several institutions of the University System listed below submitted eleven items for approval by the Board.
After discussion of these items, and upon the recommendations of the Chancellor and the Committee on Buildings and Grounds, with motion by Regent Jones, variously seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized Items 1 through 7, as follows:
1. Approval of Construction Managers, University System of Georgia
The Board approved Turner Construction Company as the Construction Manager for "Student Center," Georgia State University.
Further: The Board approved Turner Construction Company as the Construction Manager for "Parking Deck," Georgia State University.
Further: The Board approved Winter Construction Company as the Construction Manager for "Renovation of Reed Hall," The University of Georgia.
• "Student Center," Georgia State University, was authorized by the Board with a construction cost of $11,500,000. (A payback project)
• "Parking Deck," Georgia State University, was authorized by the Board with a construction cost of $4,400,000. (A payback project)
• "Renovation of Reed Hall," The University of Georgia, was authorized by the Board with a construction cost of $6,850,000. (Funding from Auxiliary Services) • The above Construction Manager selections have been completed since the March, 1996 meeting and complete the Construction Manager selections.
• The construction manager selection process is a qualifications and fee based approach that takes into consideration the firm's experience and qualifications and fee.
2. Demolition of Building, Columbus College
The Board declared the building at 34 Clearview Circle, Columbus, Georgia, on the campus of Columbus College, to be no longer advantageously useful to Columbus College or other units of the University System of Georgia and authorize the demolition and removal of this building.
Further: The Board requested Governor Miller to issue an Executive Order authorizing the demolition and removal of this building from the campus of Columbus College.
• Columbus College requested Board approval for the demolition and removal of the above described building from the Columbus College campus.
• The building is a one-story, 1,230 square foot, brick veneer residence constructed in the 1940's. The building was acquired by the Board in September, 1973, and was rented as residential property until four years ago. The building is vacant and generally in poor condition with major roof leaks, inadequate plumbing and electrical service and no heating or air conditioning.
• The cost of demolition is estimated by Columbus College to be $2,610 using Columbus College General Operating funds. The demolition will be conducted by public works contract.
• The property will be used for additional parking.
3. Rental Agreement, Georgia Southern University
The Board authorized the execution of a rental agreement between Space Master International, Inc., as Landlord, and the Board of Regents, as Tenant, for the use of Georgia Southern University, covering a classroom/office building installed on the campus of Georgia Southern University consisting of 12 building units, each measuring 12' x 48', containing a total of 6,912 square feet for the one year period from July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997 at a total rental of $67,254 ($5,604.50 per month/$9.73 per square foot per year) with the option to renew on a month-to-month basis up to a year for each option period as needed.
Annual Monthly Annual Rental Period Rate Rate PSF
July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998 $65,870 $5,489.17 $9.53 July 1, 1998 - June 30, 1999 $63,905 $5,325.41 $9.25 July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 $62,142 $5,178.50 $8.99
Further: That the terms of this rental agreement be subject to review and legal approval of the Attorney General's Office.
• The building has been rented since August 1991. The last option to renew period for the rental agreement will expire June 30, 1996.
• The current cost is $69,553 per year ($5,796.08 per month/$10.06 per square foot per year).
• The building is used for the Math/Computer Science Department and contains 18 offices and 2 large classrooms.
• The addition to the Math, Physics and Psychology Building, which is currently in design, will be completed in December, 1997. When this building is completed, this rental agreement will be terminated.
4. Relocation of Frey Road, Kennesaw State College
The Board declared an approximately 4800' x 120' tract of land to be no longer advantageously useful to Kennesaw State College or any other units of the University System of Georgia and approve the transfer of this property to Cobb County for the relocation of Frey Road in exchange for the existing Frey Road right-of-way from Cobb County subject to existing utility easements.
Further: The legal details involved in the above transfers of land be subject to the review and legal approval of the Attorney General's Office.
• As part of the long range plan for Kennesaw State College, the Board acquired the property in 1993 between Frey Road and I-75 for the future development of the Kennesaw State campus.
• Cobb County has proposed to relocate Frey Road to the edge of the Campus (adjacent to I-75) and a widening of Frey Road from the present two lanes to a four lane divided road. This relocation will be at no cost to the Board of Regents. Construction by Cobb County is anticipated to start in fall 1996 and be complete by summer 1997.
• The relocation is advantageous to Kennesaw State College because it will permit development of this tract of land for the benefit of Kennesaw State College without adverse impact from traffic on the existing Frey Road.
• Cobb County has reported the traffic count on Frey Road has increased from 9,765 in 1990 to 18,709 in 1996.
• The existing Frey Road would remain partially in place to the extent necessary to serve Kennesaw State College, but not as a thoroughfare.
5. Demolition of Water Tower, Augusta College
The Board declared the 350,000 gallon water tower located on the Augusta College campus to be no longer advantageously useful to Augusta College or other units of the University System of Georgia and authorize the demolition and removal of this structure.
Further: The Board requested Governor Miller to issue an Executive Order authorizing the demolition and removal of this structure from the Augusta College campus.
• The water tower was built in 1945 by the City of Augusta and was last used in early 1987 by Augusta Waterworks. It was abandoned when the City added two pumps to a 500,000 gallon water tank.
• The water tower is on the site of the new Science Building, planned for construction to start in June 1996.
• Removal of the water tower will be contracted by the City of Augusta at no cost to the Board of Regents. • The City estimates the cost to remove the tower to be $25,000 to $35,000.
• The City is aware of the existence of lead paint on the tower and has agreed to remove the tower using environmentally acceptable methods.
• Augusta College will be responsible for lead remediation of the soil in the vicinity of the tower. The cost of the soil remediation will be determined when the extent of contamination is evaluated. The source of funds for the soil remediation will be Augusta College Unexpended Plant funds.
• There is no known historical significance to the water tower.
• There is no known opposition to removal of the water tower.
• Augusta College will begin to pay the City of Augusta for water usage in July, 1997. The cost of water is estimated to be $37,000 per year.
6. Appointment of Architect, Valdosta State University
The Board appointed Ingram Parris Group as Architect for Project H-69 "Biology and Chemistry Building", Valdosta State University, and authorized the execution of an architectural contract with this firm at the stated cost limitation shown for the project. This appointment is subject to further inquiry by the staff and final approval by the Chancellor.
Stated Cost Limitation: $17,900,000 Total Project Cost: $22,885,000 • The Office of Facilities Selection Committee's architectural selection process is a qualifications based approach that considers the experience, performance, location, current/recent Regents projects and current work load.
• Funding for the project is 1996B Bond Funds.
• The Board approved the project at the February 1996 meeting.
7. Recommendations on Facilities for Columbus College's Music, Theater and Art Programs: Approval of Concept
The Board approved the concept for facilities for Columbus College’s Music, Theater and Art Program, as presented in the report with detailed information to be brought back to the Board for approval. The report is on file in the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources. Notes:
1) Medical College of Georgia: MRR Funds for Talmadge Hospital
Regent Jones asked for and received confirmation that MRR funding of $1.5 million would be available for one more year for the Talmadge Hospital at Medical College of Georgia. Regent Jones noted that in FY-1998 the $1.5 million would be available in MRR funds for other projects.
2) Albany State College: Acquisition of Properties
Regent Jones announced that the Chancellor’s Staff had been directed to expedite the acquisition of the Tanner and Albany properties.
3) The University of Georgia: Sale of Calhoun Property
The Chancellor’s Staff is to report back to the Committee on the marketing approach for 297 acres of property located in Calhoun, Gordon County. This property currently holds the Northwest Georgia Branch Agricultural Experiment station which will move to a new location.
Report of Committee on Research and Extension
The COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND EXTENSION met on April 9, 1996, with the following members present: Regents Hand (Chair), Dahlberg, John H. Clark, S. William Clark, Jr., Elson, McMillan and Rhodes. The Chair, Regent Hand, reported that Item No. 1 involved 98 agreements for clinical research and that Item No. 2 involved four contracts with state agencies, for a total of $414,866 in awards. The University of Georgia had one full-time faculty appointment and the Georgia Institute of Technology had 13 full-time regular faculty appointments. The Committee, through its Chair, reported that in separate letters to Chancellor Portch, the presidents of the several institutions of the University System listed below submitted items for approval by the Board. After discussion of these items, and upon the recommendations of the Chancellor and the Committee on Research and Extension, by motion of Regent Hand, and without objection, the Board unanimously approved and authorized the following:
1. Information Item: Pursuant to authority granted by the Board at its meeting on February 7-8, 1984, the presidents of Armstrong State College, Brunswick College, Floyd College, Georgia College, Georgia Southern University, Georgia State University, Kennesaw State College, and The University of Georgia executed 98 memoranda of understanding respecting affiliation of students for clinical training in the programs indicated.
2. Information Item: Pursuant to authority granted by the Board at its meeting on February 7-8, 1984, the presidents of Georgia State University, and The University of Georgia executed four service agreements with the indicated agencies for the purposes and periods designated, with the institutions to receive payment as indicated.
3. Appointment of Research and Extension Staff: The Board approved 13 full-time research/scientists or engineers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and one part-time, retired, faculty member at The University of Georgia. The appointments were recommended by Presidents Clough and Knapp subsequent to the last meeting of the Board on March 12-13, 1996. The recommendations were found to be in order and are on file in the office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the Board of Regents.
(a.) GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Brian E. Barnes, Research Engineer I, Information Technology & Communications Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective March 19, 1996.
Mr. Richard C. Brown, Research Engineer I, Systems Development Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective April 1, 1996.
Mr. Todd A. Deterding, Research Scientist I, Electro-Optics Environment and Materials Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective March 27, 1996.
Dr. Yi Ding, Research Engineer II, Aerospace Science Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective March 27, 1996.
Mr. Clifford A. Eckert, Research Associate II, Aerospace Science Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective April 1, 1996.
Mr. Michael J. Kastle, Research Scientist I, Sensors and Electromagnetic Applications Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective March 11, 1996.
Mr. Jeffrey Kemp, Research Scientist I, Sensors and Electromagnetic Applications Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective March 11, 1996.
Mr. David R. Keuchenmeister, Research Engineer II, Systems Development Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective April 1, 1996.
Mr. Peter W. Presti, Research Scientist I, Office of Inter-Disciplinary Programs, effective April 1, 1996.
Ms. Janis K. Roberts, Research Scientist II, Information Technology & Communications Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective March 15, 1996. Dr. Jimmy A. Roden, Research Engineer II, Signatures Technology Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective April 1, 1995. (Offer subject to award of Ph.D. Degree by date of employment). Mr. Donald L. Sherman, Research Engineer I, Sensors and Electromagnetic Applications Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective March 7, 1996.
Mr. Ronnie W. Smith, Senior Research Scientist, Office of Enterprise Planning, Georgia Tech Research Institute, effective April 1, 1996.
(b.) THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Dr. James Oliver Wise, Professor Emeritus, Georgia Center for Continuing Education, Vice President for Service, for period April 1, 1996-June 13, 1996.
Regent Hand also called to the attention of the Board a report by the Governor’s Science and Advisory Council entitled, ‟Georgia Agriculture in the Twenty-first Century.” Regent Hand commended Mr. Carl Swearingen, the Chair of the Council, for this outstanding work.
Report of Audit Committee
The AUDIT COMMITTEE met on April 9, 1996, with the following members present: Regents Coleman (Chair), Cannestra, and Turner. Regent Coleman stated that he had only one information item to report to the Board.
Regent Coleman announced that the Committee had discussed the status and development of the annual audit plan which will be based on a proposed risk assessment model. The Committee expects to receive a completed audit plan for FY-1997 at the June 1996 meeting. In conjunction with audit resource allocation, the Committee discussed available audit capacity and the inclusion of outsourcing as a supplement to the plan.
The Committee also heard reports on the recently completed internal audit of Albany State College, and a fraud investigation currently underway at Georgia Southern University.
Comments:
Chairman Baranco commented that she had enjoyed sitting in on the Audit Committee meeting. She noted that this was a new committee for the Board and that it was doing a very good job. Regent Coleman added that the Central Office staff was contributing greatly to the work of the Committee. Chairman Baranco also commended Mr. Levy Youmans for his risk analysis work. Regent Cannestra mentioned that Ms. Nancy Casey had also been very helpful with the risk analysis. Report of Olympic Overview Committee
The OLYMPIC OVERVIEW COMMITTEE met on April 9, 1996, with the following members present: Regents Rhodes (Chair), Dahlberg (Vice-Chair), Jenkins, and McMillan. Regent Hand was absent. After discussion and upon the recommendations of the Chancellor and the Olympic Overview Committee, by motion of Regent Rhodes, variously seconded and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following:
Mr. Levy Youmans noted that the Committee had reviewed and approved, subject to the approval of the Attorney General’s Office, three issues:
1. A Consolidated Amendatory Agreement between the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games, Inc. and the Board of Regents.
2. An Atlanta Olympic Village Supplement Agreement Governing Arrangements for the Summer 1996 Academic and Research Mission for the Georgia Institute of Technology between the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games, Inc. and the Board of Regents.
3. A 1996 Atlanta Paralympic Village Agreement.
Chairman Baranco remarked that there had been a thorough discussion of all three of the above agreements. In addition, Regent Rhodes asked for a specific report on the construction accident that took place at the Aquatic Center. The Committee received the report which stated that no actual cause had been determined. Regent Rhodes expressed the Committee’s thankfulness that there was no personal injury from the accident.
Regent Rhodes, Chair of the Committee, remarked that the above should be the last agreements involving the Olympics and needing the Board’s approval. Chairman Baranco acknowledged that Regent Rhodes had been involved with the Olympic Overview Committee since its inception, and she thanked Regent Rhodes for his hard work and devotion to the Committee’s goals.
Report of Visitation Committee
Regent John H. Clark, Chair of the VISITATION COMMITTEE, reported that Visitation Reports documenting visits had been received from Regents Cannestra and S. William Clark, Jr.
• Regent Cannestra reported a visit on April 8th to Kennesaw College for dinner and discussion with the Committee on Accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
• Regent S. William Clark, Jr. reported visits to Waycross College on March 25th to attend a Waycross College Foundation Dinner and on April 3rd to meet with the Waycross College Presidential Search Committee.
REPORT OF THE STUDENT ADVISORY COUNCIL Mr. Jimmie McEver, Chairman of the Student Advisory Council (SAC), introduced Ms. Linda Lawrence, President of the Student Government Association at the DeKalb College Central Campus. He also introduced Mr. John Walraven, President of the Student Government Association at Georgia Southern University, and Mr. John Trebetta, Student Government Association Treasurer at Valdosta State University.
Mr. McEver reported on five areas upon which the Student Advisory Council had been working. He noted that, in 1996, SAC had a Presidents’ Meeting, a Voter Registration Drive and a Winter Conference. The purpose of the Presidents’ Meeting was to make a mid-year evaluation and to make any necessary adjustments. SAC had its first Presidents’ meeting in July of 1995, and goal setting was done there. The mid-year session was held to evaluate how SAC was doing. Overall it was felt that SAC was doing a good job, that goals were being followed up; but the organization wanted to work on full participation of student governments. The organization also wanted to develop some long-term (5-7 years) planning mechanisms for SAC. The week follow SAC’s Presidents’ meeting, the Student Voter Registration week was held. Mr. McEver reported that SAC had established a good working relationship with the new Secretary of State, Mr. Lewis Massey. Mr. Massey was very supportive of increasing student turnout in elections and had helped to put mechanisms in place to allow University System and students to help out in that regard. SAC hope to make the student voter registration week an annual event. The Winter Student Advisory Conference was held in mid-February, and there was very good attendance. Mr. Massey spoke at the banquet, and he was very well received. The first-ever SAC legislative breakfast was held in February, too. In March, a basketball game between the Chancellor’s Runnin’ Regents and the SAC Brick Layers was played. SAC would also like for this to be an annual event.
Mr. McEver continued his discussion on current issues for SAC students. He noted that a most active committee had been the Academic Affairs Committee. Mr. John Trebetta, Secretary of that Committee, was asked to speak on its activities. Mr. Trebetta stated that the Academic Affairs Committee had been working on the Regents Testing Program and had been working closely with Dr. Kathleen Burk and looking at the content of the exam to make sure that everyone gets a fair chance. The Committee was also looking at appeals concerning the Regents Test; they were focusing on the appeals process and whether it is reliable. They were also working on retention rates. Mr. Trebetta and Ms. Nikki Bagley, Chair of the Committee from UGA, have been recommended to serve on the Chancellor’s Task Force for Retention Rates. The Sub-Committee on Retention Rates has also looked very closely at the report put out by Chancellor’s Office. Also under discussion by the Committee was the plus-minus grading system, which they felt (once the System is under the semester system) will help to give more differentiation in grades. When institutions have a longer term, it helps to break down a 10-point spread and students are given a better edge.
Returning to the podium, Mr. McEver noted that the Student Life Committee has been very active with the student activity fee process: a proposal presented in the fall had been passed, and the organization was prepared to get task force moving on this issue. Mr. McEver expressed his gratitude to the Legislative Affairs Committee; he noted that the Committee had been very active, especially with setting up the Legislative Breakfast and the Voter Registration Drive. Mr. McEver also remarked that it was good for students and good for the University System for students to have an active role in the legislative process. Mr. John Walraven was introduced by Mr. McEver, who noted that Mr. Walraven had been active with the Legislative and the Legislative Affairs Committees. Mr. Walraven stated that he was happy to speak to the Board of Regents and extended greetings from President Nicholas L. Henry and Georgia Southern University. Mr. Walraven remarked that the Legislative Breakfast was a wonderful opportunity for students of the System to convey their gratitude to the Legislators for the budget increase. He noted that, upon returning to Georgia from Texas, he had learned what it meant to live in a strong state economy. He compared the economic situations in California and Wisconsin where there have been job cuts to that of Georgia which is looking at a 10% increase in hiring. On the morning of February 19, Mr. Walraven was very gratified to learn that there were over 100 legislators at the SAC Legislative Breakfast. SAC has plans to have every winter conference in Atlanta, so that it will afford students access to Legislators who have been very responsive to students.
Mr. McEver acknowledged the special help of Representative Calvin Smyre and Senator Jack Hill for co-hosting the Legislative Breakfast with the Student Advisory Council. Mr. McEver also noted that the help of Vice Chancellor for External Affairs, Tom Daniel, had been invaluable. Additionally, Mr. McEver thanked Chancellor Portch and many members of the Chancellor’s staff for their help and for their attendance at the breakfast. He also noted that much of the work done by the Chancellor’s staff had reflected many of the concerns of SAC, and that he felt the ‟one voice” that the Chancellor spoke of had meant more effective legislation. Mr. McEver noted that he appreciated the chance for SAC to be involved in the legislative process.
FY-1996 was a good year for SAC, declared Mr. McEver. He remarked that SAC would hold one more conference during the year - in Carrollton. Many good discussions had built good relationships between the students and the Chancellor and his staff, between SAC and legislators, between SAC and the Board; Mr. McEver said that this strong support was appreciated.
Comments:
Chairman Baranco noted that even though SAC did not have a member sitting on the Board, the input of the University System of Georgia students is valued. She remarked that the report by Mr. McEver, Mr. Trebetta and Mr. Walraven underscored the value the Board places in the Student Advisory Council. THE CHANCELLOR’S REPORT
Chancellor Stephen R. Portch reported that he was pleased to be part of a Board meeting in the Chairman’s ‟back yard.” He thanked President Jacquelyn Belcher and the entire DeKalb College family for their wonderful hospitality.
The Chancellor applauded Chairman Baranco for how well-received were her two sessions on strategic planning at the recent annual meeting of the Association of Governing Boards (AGB), the governing boards for both private and public institutions throughout the nation. He also congratulated the Chairman on her appointment to the AGB Board of Directors and noted that she was helping raise the national visibility of the University System of Georgia.
Referring to national visibility, Chancellor Portch stated that the System could add the Wall Street Journal to its growing list of positive national press. In a recent article entitled, ‟Recruiting Incentives Are Still Alive--But Changing, ” the Wall Street Journal commented on the importance of ‟upgraded education incentives to target higher-paying jobs.” The article continued:
“Georgia is setting the pace here, and putting the pressure on the other states in the region to follow. Last week, in a move to snare a $100 million expansion by credit-card processor Total System Services, Inc. in Columbus, Georgia, Governor Zell Miller unveiled a $23 million package using the State’s University System to graduate 1,500 computer analysts over the next three years. The package was a dramatic expansion of technical-school programs traditionally used to train manufacturing workers.
The payoff for Georgia: ‘Knowledge workers,’ says John Gornall, who specializes in corporate relocations for the Atlanta law firm of Arnall, Golden and Gregory. ‛These are the kind of jobs states kill for.’”
The Chancellor stated that the University System had begun its strategic planning journey nearly two years before at the Jolley Lodge (Kennesaw State College), where the need for a plan was discussed. The Board, he noted, has a plan. The Board had talked about attracting the best talent to help the System, and the Board had attracted that talent. Also discussed were ways for the System to be more involved in helping the State to be more prosperous, and the Board has played a leadership role in economic development. The Chancellor noted that the next week there would be another major effort in that regard: Regent Coleman would lead a listening session in Statesboro, Georgia, which the Governor would join, to discuss such issues. The Board had talked about national recognition, and it has been getting national attention. They had also talked about building partnerships - especially with the Governor and the Legislature.
Chancellor Portch recognized Mr. Tom Daniel who, he announced, had been the very best legislative liaison with whom he has worked and who had made so much possible in working with the Legislature. The Chancellor also acknowledged the ‟Shoeshine Boys,” the team of University System gentlemen who meet near the shoeshine stand at the Capitol: Rob Watts (DeKalb College), Bill Golden (Georgia Southern University), Andrew Harris (Georgia Institute of Technology), Larry Weatherford (the University of Georgia), Tom Lewis (Georgia State University) and Michael Ash (Medical College of Georgia). The ‟Shoeshine Boys” had worked for their individual institutions and also on behalf of the System, and the Chancellor thanked them for their efforts.
Another aspect of partnership that would be of increasing importance, stated the Chancellor, is funding for the private sector. Breaking from his usual tradition, the Chancellor stated that he would focus the ‟Good News” portion of his report on the extraordinary generosity to Georgia of the Woodruff Foundation.
Chancellor Portch announced that, the preceding week, Mr. Pete McTier had informed him that the (Woodruff) Foundation was going to provide $4 million over two years time to help launch two vital and related initiatives of the Board.
• First, the Pre-College Program was aimed at providing youngsters from at- risk backgrounds every possible opportunity to meet raised admissions standards. The program will be a year-round effort, in partnership with local schools, the Department of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE), and business; it was aimed at keeping youngsters excited about learning and achieving by supplementing what they learn in school. The System would be piloting the program this summer at four institutions with a full-scale effort aimed at 8th graders to follow. The overall plan is to introduce a new cohort of 8th graders for four years, while following each cohort through from admission to post-secondary education. The program would be described more fully when the Chancellor’s Office is ready to introduce the admissions proposals. The Chancellor thanked Dr. Pete Silver, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and his task force for their leadership in putting this part of the Woodruff proposal together.
• The other part of the proposal related to funding the local P-16 Councils that are up and running. These challenge-grants will bring schools of education, colleges of liberal arts, and local schools into meaningful partnerships. Such co-reform activities will not only strengthen the System’s ties to local schools but should also strengthen the practical training of the state’s future teachers.
Both these efforts are long-term investments in strengthening education at all levels in Georgia. As the Board recognized in its strategic plan, the System’s future is very much tied to the quality of its seed corn. The P-16 program has the System hard at work with the plough. The Chancellor thanked Dr. Jan Kettlewell, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, for her leadership in that field and for working on that aspect of the Woodruff Proposal.
The Chancellor remarked that Woodruff had just funded the Consortium of Atlanta Private Colleges and Universities so that they can join the University System’s GALILEO library project. He reminded the Board that GALILEO had been designed so that additional partners could be added. Already included were the regional public libraries, and soon to be included were the DTAE institutions. Every library that joins, noted the Chancellor, adds something unique to the sharing.
Chancellor Portch declared that he was very, very grateful for the private support of the Woodruff Foundation and of many other entities. The Chancellor declared that, in response to such support, the University System of Georgia stands ready to deliver.
Noting that he was once again travelling around the State since the Legislature had left town, the Chancellor stated that he continually heard support, whether it be from the Savannah Rotary Club (whose President is Regent Coleman) or the Habersham Rotary Club.
The System’s colleges and universities -- with the Chancellor noting that he’d visited Savannah State College, Armstrong State College, Columbus College, Augusta College, Medical College and Macon College during the month -- continue to be energized and challenged by the changing environment. That energy was particularly evident at Dalton College, remarked Chancellor Portch, where the Dalton Roadkill gave the Runnin’ Regents a spirited game before succumbing to the reality of budget allocation month! That energy and spirit had also been highly evident during the Board’s two days at DeKalb College: one of the System’s largest, most diverse, and most complex institutions. DeKalb is, said the Chancellor, a college meeting the needs of students and expanding its reach into the communities. DeKalb College’s President, Dr. Jacquelyn Belcher, is bringing national attention to the College. Beginning on Friday, April 12, DeKalb College will host the annual meeting of the American Association of Community Colleges (over 1,000 two-year colleges are represented by this organization). These are historic events and times at DeKalb College - a microcosm in so many ways of the System as a whole.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Project No. G-88, ‟University Apartments”:
Regent Anderson inquired about the status of Project No. G-88, ‟University Apartments.” Chancellor Portch responded that the Attorney General and the Georgia State Finance and Investment Corporation (GSFIC) had set a deadline of April 20, 1996, to address this issue. This would be a discussion item on the agenda for the next Board meeting.
2. Matching Funds for the Equipment and Technology Trust Fund
Regent Jones noted that the Board had distributed $3 million to the 34 units in the System during the past year from the Equipment and Technology Trust Fund. Regent Jones expressed some concern that some of the institutions were unable to find matching funds in order to qualify for such funds. He wondered when this would again be under discussion. Chancellor Portch assured Regent Jones that this would be an agenda item in the next few months.
3. Assistance for the Central Office’s Facilities Department
Regent Jones asked whether some plans were being devised to assist the Facilities Department of the Central Office. He noted that this office was staffed by 16 people who were responsible for 55% of all the facilities owned by the state of Georgia. These 16 people were also expected to oversee $1 billion of new construction. This, Regent Jones remarked, was a gargantuan undertaking. The Chancellor stated that the Legislature did fund $180,000 for additional staff in the Central Office in the areas of facilities and audit. NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Baranco called upon Dr. Arthur Dunning, Senior Vice Chancellor for Human and External Resources, to speak to the Board about honorary degrees. Dr. Dunning remarked that the Board had implemented a policy to allow colleges and universities in the University System of Georgia to award honorary degrees. Since that time, the System’s Central Office had developed and communicated a protocol to ensure that the nomination process is orderly and efficient. The Central Office had also invited recommendations from the campuses and faculty committees on the campuses. The necessary follow-up work was done with each of the System Presidents to make sure that each nominee met the Board’s criteria. The Board set some basic conditions for the awarding of honorary degrees: (1) few awards should be given, and (2) candidates would be recognized for notable achievements in an academic field - the arts and letters, the professions and public service. For the commencements in the spring of 1996, the Chancellor recommended that seven candidates to be awarded honorary degrees. Each Regent had received background information about these candidates: each candidate is an outstanding citizen, and each has obtained notable achievement in public service - some locally, some nationally, and even some internationally. Dr. Dunning listed the candidates as:
1. The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr., former mayor of Atlanta who guided the city from a small-town status to status as an international city: nominated by Georgia Institute of Technology.
2. Mr. Harmon R. Born who has been a leader in the Clayton State College Foundation and both a business and community leader in that section of the state: nominated by Clayton State College.
3. Mr. John W. Langdale who President Hugh Bailey calls the ‟citizen from South Georgia” who has served Valdosta State well, south Georgia well and the Valdosta State Foundation well: nominated by Valdosta State University.
4. Ms. Catherine W. LeBlanc who is the Executive Director of the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Her work has benefitted minority students across the country: nominated by Fort Valley State College. 5. Ms. Katherine Reese Pamplin - a 1936 graduate of Augusta College and a major benefactor to the institution, as well as a real role model to students there: nominated by Augusta College.
6. Mr. Roy Richards whose leadership for education in Georgia is unquestioned and who is a major player in the P-16 program: nominated by West Georgia College.
7. Ambassador Andrew Young who needs no introduction. The Honorable Dr. Young has served the community, the state, the nation and the world in many capacities: nominated by the University of Georgia.
By motion of Regent Leebern, seconded by Regent Dahlberg, the Board unanimously approved the granting of honorary degrees to the seven above-listed candidates.
Chairman Baranco complimented Dr. Dunning and the Central Office staff for a superb job in putting together the outstanding list of candidates to receive honorary degrees from institutions of the University System of Georgia.
GENERAL ITEMS
1. Commendation of Regent Kenneth W. Cannestra
Regent Jones commended Regent Cannestra on the good job he is doing as Chairman of the Finance and Business Committee. He also complimented Regent Coleman, Chair of the Audit Committee, and all who had been involved with creating that Committee.
2. System’s Strategic Plan Receiving National Recognition
Referring to the Chancellor’s remarks about the Chairman’s appearances at the annual meeting of the Association of Governing Boards (AGB), Chairman Baranco noted that this had given her a chance to reflect on what the Board of Regents and the University System of Georgia had accomplished. She reflected that since the meeting at Jolley Lodge in September 1994 at which the strategic plan was developed, that it was not an easy task to tie the budget to the strategic plan. Many attending the conference were in awe of the accomplishments of Georgia’s University System. There were many questions about how these accomplishments had been possible. The Chairman commended all the Regents for the work they had done, and she also commended the Chancellor for his leadership and his help in focusing on the issues. The Chairman mentioned that a meeting sponsored by the Central Office Legal Department had been held with University System department chairs. She noted, also, that the Presidents of the institutions were happy to have wonderful candidates applying for jobs at their institutions.
3. Article in American Association of Higher Education Bulletin Regent Leebern announced that he had found an article printed in the March 1996 issue of the American Association of Higher Education Bulletin that would further reflect on what Chairman Baranco had just said. Under the ‟Bulletin Board,” Regent Leebern read,
“Georgia: The sun, the moon, and stars seemed to come together in Georgia public higher education with the arrival of Steve Portch as Chancellor a year and one-half ago . . . Backed by an education governor (Zell Miller), and a spirited board chair, Steve has pushed to reality a dozen or more complicated initiatives, including statewide telecommunications and transfer agreements, post- tenure review, new admissions standards and tuition policies, a big calendar change, a P-16 project, alliances with this party and that, even new dicta on honorary degrees (touchy issue!). Stay tuned . . . there is more to come.”
4. Commendation of Regent Leebern
Regent Hand remarked that Regent Leebern should be commended for his outstanding leadership as Chairman of the Board for FY-1995, during which time the Strategic Plan was first developed.
5. Gratitude Owed to Governor and Legislature
Regent Coleman commented that the Board of Regents and the University System of Georgia owed a debt of gratitude to the Governor and the Legislature for their leadership and their assistance with the higher education programs. Chairman Baranco emphasized, in addition, that the Board could not have been nearly so successful without the help of the Governor, a true education governor, and the Legislature.
6. Re-Accreditation of System Institutions
Chairman Baranco stated that a number of System institutions are in the cycle for re-affirmation of their accreditation. As a part of that process, some Regents may be called upon to talk about governance issues. The Chairman suggested that those Regents contact Senior Vice Chancellor Jim Muyskens as a source of information on re-accreditation.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Baranco announced that the Governor’s Office had requested that the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, along with the Department of Technical and Adult Education and the State Board of Education, issue a proclamation on behalf of Manufacturing Appreciation Week, April 14-20, 1996. The Board directed the staff to issue such a proclamation.
Chairman Baranco asked for a motion to recess the regular Board meeting and convene the Committee for Planning and Oversight as Committee of the Whole. By motion of Regent J. H. Clark, and without objection, the Committee of the Whole was convened and the Chairman turned the meeting over to Regent Leebern, Chair of the Committee.
MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND OVERSIGHT, MEETING AS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
The Committee Chair, Regent Leebern, announced that there was one major item on the Committee’s agenda: Recommendations on Implementing the Faculty and Staff Development Policy Direction. Regent Leebern explained that the Board of Regents had adopted the Policy on Faculty and Staff Development in March 1995. This policy direction focused on the need to recruit and retain top quality faculty and staff who will provide the best education and the best services possible to the students of the University System of Georgia. This was the first reading of the report. The report will be on the agenda for adoption at the Board’s May 1996 meeting. Regent Leebern introduced Dr. Ralph Hemphill (Vice President and Dean of Faculties at Georgia College), the Chairman of the Task Force for Faculty and Staff Development, and Dr. Delmer Dunn (Regents Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia), a member of the Task Force, to summarize the recommendation on Implementing the Faculty & Staff Development.
Chancellor Portch described the recommendation on Faculty and Staff Development as very important for the University System of Georgia. He noted that the Task Force had worked extremely hard and had developed a very comprehensive report and set of recommendations. There were a lot of major issues to consider. The Chancellor asked Dr. Hemphill talk about the Task Force’s work and the recommendations.
Dr. Hemphill thanked the Chancellor and the Board of Regents for the opportunity to present the Faculty and Staff Development Task Force Report and its Coordinating Committee Report. He noted that a final 264-page report was available, but that he would present an oral executive-type summary of the recommendations contained in the report. The Task Force consisted of 40 members, divided into 4 work groups covering all employees in the University System, and a coordinating committee that contained the chairmen of the 4 work groups and 3 other members at large, including a student, Mr. Jimmie McEver, President of the Student Advisory Council. The Task Force was also fortunate to have a member from private industry, Mr. Ron Remillard, Director of Corporate Training programs at Georgia Pacific. The Task Force not only looked inside the University System and surveyed other state systems of higher education for their personal policies and practices, but they also looked outside of higher education into the private and corporate world for their training programs. Mr. Remillard was very helpful in providing information on practices in the corporate world. There was a well- known faculty member from Georgia Southern University on the Task Force, Dr. Charlene Black. Two members of the Central Office staff, Mr. Don Davis and Dr. John Fleischmann, also helped by providing the System perspective, and they contributed to the much-needed survey that was conducted. The faculty work group was chaired by Dr. Delmer Dunn, Regents Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia. His group dealt with topics such as Post-Tenure Review. The professional staff members of the System are gaining in importance and instructional aids are increasingly dependent on technology such as GSAMS and the Internet; the Task Force was very fortunate to have Dr. Jacqueline Michael chair the group. The support staff is the largest group of employees of the University System - over 13,000 of the 29,000 System employees fit in this category. Ms. Patrice Masterson, of DeKalb College, chaired this group. The Senior Administrators group includes presidents and other executive- level employees, and Dr. Frank Brown, President of Columbus College, ably chaired this group.
The essential task of the Faculty and Staff Development Task Force was to review the personnel policies and practices of the University System of Georgia at both the institutional and System levels and make recommendations for changes which would improve the way the System hires, retains, removes and retires all faculty and staff of the System. Over 80% of the budget of the University System of Georgia is spent on personnel services, therefore the job facing the Task Force was to improve 80% of everything the System does. Each recommendation is designed to implement the Regents’ policy direction on Faculty and Staff Development. The recommendations of the Task Force can be summarized as:
1. The Faculty and Staff Development Task Force Report is intended to be the manual of guidelines for new a personnel policy process for the University System of Georgia. It is time to begin operating as a statewide system of education rather than as just a collection of institutions. 2. The Task Force recommended that the institutions implement a comprehensive faculty recruitment and development program that seeks the best faculty nationwide. This would include Pre-tenure review, Post-tenure review, peer review, student involvement in evaluations, professional leave, other faculty development and improvement practices, and promotion of national patterns of excellence in teaching research and public service for all faculty in the System.
3. The Task Force recommended that the institutions implement a comprehensive performance management plan for hiring personnel and a classification process for personnel and support staff who are not faculty to include written job descriptions and annual performance evaluations based on institutional missions, service to students and provide training for supervisors and employees and using the performance management system. This process is considered superior to the traditional annual evaluation because it integrates planning for professional development into the process and enhances communication between the employee and his/her supervisor(s).
4. The Task Force recommended that the institutions implement TQM/CQI management principles to improve the administration of institutions. The Central Office should include system-sponsored workshops, all executive-level administrators, administrative internships to identify internal talent, and national searches to attract nationwide talent to continuously renew the leadership of the System.
5. The Task Force recommended that the University System institutions and the Central Office adopt a career development program that will encourage full-time faculty, staff and administrators to participate in developmental activities and study by remission, reimbursing tuition, those activities by the employees of these institutions and clearly related to the employees’ job and professional development.
Dr. Delmer Dunn then presented the recommendations for the professional development of faculty. The Faculty Work Group was one of the four groups that worked with the Faculty and Staff Development Task Force. There were nine members of the Committee - six of whom were faculty members, two administrators and one student. They represented all the varying kinds of institutions in the System. They brought to the committee work much experience. The group met 13 times between June 1995 and February 1996. In that process, it incorporated feedback received as draft proposals were developed. The Committee began with the basic document that the Board approved in March 1995 telling them what needed to be done and then tried to come up with some of the best ways to implement what the Board required. The end result represented a lot of careful thought and hard work, extensive feedback from across the System, and the experience brought to the group by the Committee members. Some major recommendations included:
1. Post-tenure Review: its purpose is to encourage faculty members to continue to develop and to enhance their skills and performance - to develop a long-term career perspective that will ensure that they will perform to their full potential throughout their careers as faculty members in University System institutions. If these recommendations are adopted by the Board, the University System of Georgia among the first systems to adopt Post-tenure review, although others are moving rapidly in this direction. The recommendations require that Post-tenure review be conducted by faculty peers at least every five years after a faculty member achieves tenure. It is set within the broad framework of faculty development - providing candid feedback to the faculty member being reviewed on his/her accomplishments, performances and contributions during that five year period. Also, it provides guidance for improving performance. It is important that this review not be seen as punitive; It will give them an opportunity to look at their long-term career goals, and it will give institutions a way to develop a full partnership with faculty members as they develop long-term career goals. It does indicate clearly that unsatisfactory performance is one of the possible outcomes and what institutions are able to do if a faculty member’s performance is judged as unsatisfactory.
2. Third Year Review: This is a mid-course evaluation of faculty members who have not been granted tenure. It ensures that a more comprehensive review than the annual review will take place and will provide feedback on whether the faculty member is on course to receive tenure. If not, it will indicate what needs to be done in order to achieve promotion and tenure. In some instances, that feedback may indicate to the faculty member that he/she is not making good progress toward tenure and is not likely to receive tenure, so she/he can decide to seek employment elsewhere. It will, in many cases, help faculty members see opportunities to improve their chances for promotion and tenure. 3. Immediate tenure for senior faculty members: Institutions of higher education in this country utilize many techniques to improve their positions in the marketplace. Institutions compete for the best faculty members and for the best students. Competition is built into what the institutions do every day. In Georgia, the practice of merit pay increases tied to performance is utilized - this is another important factor. Tenure is an important part of higher education. These and other competitive features of higher education have been at least part of the reason why American higher education is the best in the world. In this regard, the Committee strongly recommends immediate tenure for outstanding senior faculty members. This will make it possible to attract Nobel prize winners, members of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineers, etc. -- people who would not consider giving up tenure at universities elsewhere to move to Georgia without tenure. Without this factor, University System institutions lack a key element when trying to attract superior faculty. All peer university systems surveyed indicated that they offer immediate tenure at the full and associate level. It is anticipated that this will not be a large group of candidates in any case. The appointments also would require the Board’s approval in each case.
There is also a recommendation to establish a Regents Teaching Award program. This program would provide an excellent chance to emphasizing the importance of teaching and instruction in the University System. Several recommendations in the report include a requirement for peer review of instruction as well as student evaluations. Since the early 70’s, the Board has required student evaluations of teaching which are very helpful. On the other hand, peer evaluation has not been used very much but it can be quite helpful in faculty reviews. More direct assessment of teaching aptitude will be required in interviewing perspective faculty members.
Finally, the recommendations include one on leaves without and with pay to allow faculty to enhance their teaching and scholarship. Such leaves are an important aspect of faculty and staff development.
Comments: Regent Anderson asked how it was determined that immediate tenure was needed. He remarked that, nationally, many systems were looking at getting away from tenure. He stated that, at present, there seemed to be no problem with recruiting good faculty members for the System institutions. Dr. Dunn responded that this is simply a way to attract those persons with superior qualifications who might otherwise go elsewhere. Chairman Baranco noted that a new campus had opened near Naples, Florida, where none of the faculty was offered tenure and that it seemed to be staffed quickly. Dr. Dunn reiterated that immediate tenure would only be offered to persons with a demonstrable and measurable track record. Dr. Dunn stated that there are always a lot of candidates for faculty positions; however, immediate tenure would be a means of attracting the very best to apply for certain positions - otherwise they probably would not apply. He said that some people may feel tenure is not important, but it is a part of what has made higher education great in the United States, and the marketplace situation puts those who do not offer tenure at a great disadvantage. Without such enticement, some of the very best people will not aspire to careers in higher education. Tenure has, in addition, helped in the areas of scientific research and medical research.
The Chancellor noted that virtually all the competition has immediate tenure as a piece of ammunition in their recruitment of faculty. Most systems only offer this in a handful of cases each year. In addition, each appointment would come individually to the Board for approval, and would only be offered to extremely senior and extremely distinguished people. Chancellor Portch said that the Board should allow itself the possibility of considering such appointments.
Regent Hand commented that, if immediate tenure is offered, it is most important that the System have a very effective post-tenure review process.
Regent Elson supported the idea of immediate tenure because she felt that no top person in some fields would come to an institution in the University System of Georgia unless this option were offered to them. She emphasized that this was an option that could be used in special cases to attract very special talent.
Regent Cannestra noted that an individual who is tops in his field would not be apt to worry about whether or not he/she was offered tenure. He also questioned whether, when post-tenure review was done, would it be possible to recommend that tenure be taken away. Dr. Dunn answered that the immediate result of post- tenure review would be basically either satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance. When an institution has a faculty member who receives an unsatisfactory performance, the institution has a number of options from which to choose, one of which would be dismissal. The Chancellor predicted that with the rigorous post-tenure reviews being planned, there would be an increase in retirements.
Regent Dahlberg asked how many appointments were likely to be made each year in which immediate tenure would be offered. The Chancellor stated that there would likely be no more than a dozen such appointments per year. Dr. Dunn stated that it would depend on what kind of vacancies occur during a year.
Regent S. William Clark, Jr., stated that, in his work with the Education Committee, complaints about certain faculty members had come to his attention. If those faculty members have tenure, it is extremely difficult to get them out of the System. He noted, however, that he believed in the post-tenure review process and hoped this would be an effective way to ensure that faculty members are productive. As for immediate tenure being offered to attract faculty members, he recommended that it not be offered unless that person already had earned tenure elsewhere. Regent Clark said that he would not want immediate tenure offered to someone, even though a ‟super star” in his/her field, if he/she had not proven him/herself in the classroom.
Chairman Baranco mentioned that on the national level the System was at the forefront with post-tenure review and that the plans would give department heads the tools to do this effectively.
Regent Leebern then asked Dr. Sharon James, Special Assistant to the Chancellor, to tell the Board about post-tenure review in the Wisconsin System. Dr. James said that post-tenure review had been instituted and the policy was established when Dr. Portch was a part of that System. Policies are presently being put into place. In a report to the Wisconsin Regents last year, faculty member from the University of Wisconsin-Madison spoke about how important it had been and how it helped him to think about future career development and planning for the next five years. One problem with the Wisconsin policy is that there is no provision for what should be done in the case of an unsatisfactory performance. However, this is laid out in the proposal for the Georgia System. Dr. Dunn remarked that there was language in the report setting down some guidelines, but each institution would be required to set the specifics of such. Each institutional plan would be reviewed by the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Regent Turner stated that he was concerned that a policy should be spelled out as to how much time would be given, etc. He noted that a faculty member receiving an unsatisfactory performance evaluation should be reviewed again the next year. This should be spelled out in more detail. Regent Leebern reiterated that each institution would have guidelines while they devise their own policy in this regard. Regent Hand wanted to know why there would not be a set of standard guidelines. Dr. Dunn answered that the primary reason is that, just as each institution has their own promotion guidelines, the standards of performance would be different for each depending upon their mission, etc. Regent Elson mentioned that some basic guidelines could be provided to the institutions to use when designing their policies. The Chancellor said that minimum standards could be set to be tailored by each institution to fit their particular needs.
Regent Clark then asked about the procedure for providing leave for faculty members as part of a faculty development program. He had no concern about letting faculty members go to any System institution to study tuition-free and for allowing such leave with pay, but he did feel it was necessary to ensure that these people would not use the System to get an advanced degree and then leave the System. He suggested that language should be put into the policy to provide a payback policy. Regent Rhodes noted that there was already in the System an allowance for three years of probationary credit towards tenure with the possibility of achieving tenure in five years. He asked whether this policy would be changed. Dr. Dunn said that there was no recommendation for changing this policy.
Regent Dahlberg asked whether there were any major systems that have eliminated tenure altogether. The answer he received was that there were not. A very small number of individual institutions have done this, but none of the systems have done so.
Regent Jones expressed surprise that the recent pay raises passed by the Legislature would not be enough enticement to attract the best faculty to the state while other states were experiencing pay cuts. The Chancellor stated that though the pay raises were very helpful, the state was still in the process of catching up with the national norm. The Chancellor added that this would attract many good faculty people, but that special incentives would be required to attract the ‟super stars” of higher education. He also noted that many of these people might bring with them $10-20 million in grants and jobs and that other states will do whatever is necessary to hold on to such personnel. Regent Elson further emphasized that this was only an option for the System to attract some really top people.
Regent Dahlberg noted that there were a lot of recommendations in the report and that each Regent needed to study the report well before the vote is taken at the next meeting.
The Chancellor stated that the exact recommendations for the Board to consider would be sorted out before the May meeting. Regent Leebern remarked that although this would be presented at the May meeting, the Board could continue to consider these policies for a longer period if they so desire.
Regent Dahlberg noted that everyone seemed to have some concern about post-tenure review - what the procedure would look like, what the remedies would be, how long a period of time would be required to remedy an unsatisfactory report and that these specifics should be addressed in the report. Regent Leebern asked the Regents to consider that the Board be market-driven so that the University System of Georgia can be competitive.
Regent Leebern thanked the presenters and all the members of the Task Force for their work.
By motion of Regent Jones, seconded by Regent Dahlberg, the Board unanimously approved reconvening the regular session of the Board of Regents meeting.
Chairman Baranco thanked all concerned with making the presentations. Chairman Baranco said that the Regents’ comments would be incorporated into the documents for consideration at the next meeting.
Chairman Baranco thanked DeKalb College for hosting the Board Meeting. The Chairman asked Dr. Martha Nesbitt to tell the Regents about the potted plants awaiting them outside the door of Room 411. Dr. Nesbitt explained that the plants were ferns grown by DeKalb College in its native wild flower garden on the South Campus. Dr. Nesbitt further explained that the garden had the largest collection of native wild flowers in the state.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
By motion of Regent Leebern, seconded by Regent Anderson, and with a unanimous show of hands, the Board of Regents went into Executive Session in order to discuss personnel issues at 11:15 A.M. on Wednesday, April 10, 1996.
The Board meeting returned to the regular session at 11:40 A.M. Chairman Baranco announced that no action had been taken in the executive session.
There being no further business to come before the Board, by motion of Regent Hand, and without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 A.M. on April 10, 1996.
s/GAIL S. WEBER Gail S. Weber Secretary Board of Regents University System of Georgia s/JUANITA POWELL BARANCO Juanita Powell Baranco Chairman Board of Regents University System of Georgia